OCA 2007

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States, arguing that the demanding state did not produce reliable evidence because the means of knowledge of a special agent were not disclosed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record provided detailed information about the special agent's means of knowledge through electronic and physical surveillance, which demonstrated the reliability of the evidence and confirmed the appellant's identity.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari regarding his committal for trial on charges of criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from a tractor-trailer collision that resulted in three fatalities.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence of wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others to justify the committal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was some evidence, including the appellant's knowledge of the trailer's poor condition and tendency to lean, to meet the low threshold for committal.

The respondent was sued after his son was injured while driving a go-kart on a private track.

The respondent sought coverage and a defence from his automobile insurer.

The insurer brought a motion to determine whether a go-kart is an 'automobile' under the standard Ontario automobile insurance contract.

The motion judge found that a go-kart is an automobile because it is capable of being driven on a highway.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the proper question is whether the vehicle required motor vehicle insurance at the time and in the circumstances of the accident.

Because the go-kart was operated on a private track, it did not require insurance and was not an 'automobile' under the policy.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice C. Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 4, 2005.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in a one-sentence endorsement.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice C. Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 4, 2005.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a one-sentence endorsement.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in a brief endorsement.

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of breach of trust for stealing cash from his detachment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, misapplied the burden of proof, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material errors in the trial judge's reasons and concluding the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer advised him to testify, resulting in a virtual confession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that trial counsel's advice was a reasonable exercise of judgment given the formidable Crown case, and was a strategic attempt to show the conduct fell short of the 'marked departure' standard.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the court found no basis to interfere.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to the United States, arguing that his serious eye condition would not be adequately treated in a Florida jail and that surrender would shock the conscience of Canadians.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had fully considered the new medical evidence and reasonably concluded that the U.S. authorities' assurances were sufficient.

The Minister's decision was owed considerable deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions and total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the physical and sexual abuse of his children.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the sexual abuse allegations, improperly assessed videotaped statements, and rendered an unreasonable verdict on the assault charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and her assessment of the videotaped statements was appropriate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in refusing credit for time spent on strict bail conditions, though a technical correction was made to the counts on which the sentence was imposed.

The respondent had a claim against a company that went into receivership.

A vesting order transferred the debtor's assets to the appellant, expunging the respondent's claim against those assets.

The appellant obtained an Order to Continue the proceedings under Rule 11 to pursue a counterclaim against the respondent.

The motion judge varied the Rule 11 order to allow the respondent to pursue its original claim against the appellant as a stand-alone claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a Rule 11 order is purely procedural and cannot create substantive rights that were expunged by the vesting order.

The respondent was limited to asserting its claim by way of set-off against the appellant's counterclaim.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for careless driving.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and remitted the careless driving appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court to be heard with the 'no clear view' appeal.

The appellant appealed his 16-month sentence for assaulting his spouse, arguing the sentencing judge mischaracterized the offence and imposed a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge's characterization of the prolonged, brutal assault, which included violent entry into the home, assault in front of a child, and firing an arrow as the victim fled.

The sentence was deemed fit, particularly given it was the appellant's second conviction for spousal assault.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give credit for pre-trial custody that resulted from other charges in Ottawa and Pembroke.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's decision was not unreasonable.

The court noted that the sentence remained well within the appropriate range given the appellant's criminal record, even though not all pre-trial custody was used up in the subsequent disposition of the Ottawa charges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant real estate brokerage sued for commissions allegedly owing on the sale of a nursing home.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, who were the sole shareholders, officers, and directors of the corporate defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or inducing breach of contract, as there was no contract with the individuals personally and no evidence they signed in a personal capacity.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent Bank was a holder in due course of a cheque.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the Bank took the cheque in good faith and without notice of any defect in title when it was deposited.

The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent issuance of a bank draft constituted the negotiation of the cheque by the Bank.

The appellant sued her former lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he settled her motor vehicle accident claim too soon and for too little.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care and the appellant was motivated to settle early.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in qualifying a mediator as an expert and in permitting a defence expert to testify despite a breach of an order excluding witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her conclusion that the lawyer met the standard of care.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that a proposed visitation centre at Mount Pleasant Cemetery was not permitted under the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the proposed visitation centre, which includes a chapel, visitation rooms, and reception facilities, constitutes an 'associated use' under the by-law and falls within the definition of 'cemetery services' under the Cemeteries Act.

The appellant appealed his effective eight-year sentence for firearms offences, arguing it failed to reflect his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential, and represented too large an increase from his previous sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of attending a meeting to purchase firearms while armed with a loaded handgun containing hollow-point bullets.

The court noted the appellant was subject to three firearms prohibitions at the time and had a significant related criminal record, concluding the sentence was fit and no error in principle occurred.

The appellant, who had a substantial criminal record including a previous ten-year sentence for bank robberies, appealed his effective sentence of thirteen years imprisonment for seven bank robberies and one attempted bank robbery.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit, noting the gravity of the offences and the expert evidence indicating a risk of re-offending.

The court held that the sentence did not offend the principles of proportionality and totality, and dismissed the appeal.